Not so Pistolero, but none of us will ever convince you of the facts!
The good guy with the gun argument is laughable and just sad and useless rhetoric.
You are just one of the millions duped by the NRA....so just keep paying your dues to support that jerk, La Pierre, and help pay his salary of a million dollars a year to lobby congress at the behest of the gun manufacturers.
The NRA is nothing but a shill for the business of selling of more guns.

Someone recently pointed out that we haven't banned booze or cars, but through better regulation and enforcement have managed to greatly reduce drunk driving and the harm it causes. The same sort of approach ought to be used to reduce harm from shooters. The false dichotomy between doing nothing (or increasing access to guns) and Obama showing up at your house with a bunch of Black Panthers to confiscate your guns is not a rational way of getting to solutions.

Isn't it rather ironic the administration responsible for smuggling guns into a neighobring country to drug running terrorits is wanting to lecture us about the evils of private citizens owning those very same type of firearms.

They say bad cases make bad law, but I'm not going to argue for any gun policy that I would not be willing to argue for at Sandy Hook elementary school three weeks and two days ago. It's a game changer. Where I live there's been a surge of gun purchases and applications for concealed carry permits since then.

Anyone surprised that Right Wingers are running to the gun store spending hard earned coin on a lot of hardware they will never use? All because of paranoid fantasies probably cooked up by gun manufacturers to prey on the dim witted.

Pistolero, enjoy your sport shooting. I'm sure you can have a great time with a gun that takes at most six bullets at once. But there is absolutely no reason that a sport shooter needs to have a semi-automatic assault weapon.

You know, it's still possible to retain your right to defend yourself and engage in sport shooting without an unrestricted right to buy and sell guns without licenses, own armor piercing and explosive bullets, and have nearly automated weapons.

Great example: there is already technology that would not allow a gun to be fired except for a biometrically identified legal owner.

How would that restrict your right to sport shoot? How would that restrict your right to defend yourself? But guess what: fought tooth and nail by the NRA and gun manufacturers.

With all this talk about registering everything with ballistic punch and every owner thereof, and the new trick of the progressive wingnuts in publishing the names and addresses of weapon owners, it looks like I'm going to have no choice but to join many of my neighbors in owning a rifle, a shotgun and/or a semi-automatic weapon, so my family won't be targeted. Thanks for nothing knee-jerkers.

The Second Amendment was NEVER and is NOT about hunting. It was and is about:
Citizens protecting their country
Citizens protecting themselves
(against other people AND their
own government)
Can citizens adequately defend themselves against their own government and their modern weapons? No, but it certainly makes the government think about the citizen's capabilities.

I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to justify my constitutional rights so I don't have a response for the arbitrary amount of bullets my gun holds.

But maybe you can enlighten us on the efficacy of prohibition or facts related to additional firearms regulations and their impact on crime? I hear Mexico has a total ban on private ownership of firearms, how is that going for them?

Since my government mandated "opportunity" to train on some advanced weapons in the military, I've gone back in time to appreciate the skills required to master the black powder muzzle loader.

While I know I'll never change the mind of the anti gun crowd, I would like to try to explain the "assault rifle" of 1776.

The British were armed with the "Brown Bess" smooth bore musket. Usually .75 caliber, it was a powder sucking, hooking & slicing inaccurate hand cannon. Great for Napoleonic formation battles, but highly inaccurate.

Many of the Americans on the other hand, were armed with PRIVATELY OWNED .50 cal. + - "Kentucky Rifle" (most made in Pennsylvania) ... now THAT was an assault weapon. The experienced patriot could be accurate up to 250 yards with HIS PERSONAL WEAPON that won the war.

Outnumbered and outgunned, those American, privately owned assault weapons of the day prevailed against tyranny. That's probably why the founders placed that second amendment right up there near the top of those personal rights.

And there was a number of Korean Merchants in East LA that never needed their personal weapons either... except for that one week after the Rodney King verdict. Oh ya... a few million Jews could have used theirs too.

Oh, and Matt Wuerker: NO ONE in 1776 called their weapon a "flintlock". Matchlocks were obsolete and long guns would be called, "muskets" or "rifles".

But those of us familiar with firearms are used to the inaccurate descriptions from those that are not.

Repeated cases of mentally ill people opening fire on groupings of innocents tells us we have a problem. Our political leaders want to show their relevance (to constituients and themselves) by coming up with a legislative "solution". If you think there is a legislative solution to this truly distressing problem, you're kidding yourself.

We have a society where there are some very sick people. We have a toxic culture that pours gasoline on the fires that already burn in their messed up brains. And we have tools of mass destruction that aren't too difficult to get.

There is no chance that any of our political leaders will do anything about the sick people or the toxic culture. They'll make some changes to what gun manufacturers can build and what people can buy and sell and leave everything else as is. They'll issue press releases and have fundraisers telling everyone how great they are for taking on the NRA and solving the problem of mass killings. They won't have accomplished a damned thing.

There are hundreds of millions of weapons in the US now. Unless the government successfully confiscates them (good luck with that), no legislation on guns will do a damned thing to solve this problem. (And the Second Amendment, written by people who actually did take up arms against their government in the Revolutionary War, not "hunters", will never permit confiscation.) And since our leaders certainly won't (and probably can't) do anything about the mental illness or the toxic culture, the cycle will continue.

The only winners will be the paid arguers (either pro-gun or anti-gun). The rest of us are just spectators, law-abiding citizens who will have to jump through more hoops to buy a gun, and potential victims.

The assault weapons "ban" of the '90s didn't stop Columbine. Nothing coming out of these incidents will accomplish anything either.

We have a model for risk abatement - tested over a century - which may be applicable. I suggest we consider guns and cars somewhat alike in their ability to create havoc and kill. With two differences of course:

• Gun ownership is protected by the Constitution and car ownership is not.

• Guns are primarily designed to kill something. Cars are primarily designed to transport people.

Nevertheless, we could look at the personal responsibility/liability insurance laws we have for cars as a possible model for gun toting:

• People choosing to tote guns would be required to have property and casualty insurance.

• Further, to cover those scofflaws that fail/refuse to buy such insurance, an uninsured pool would be created and the premiums of all insurance holders would be charged to fund the pool (this is the model used in most states for auto insurance).

• Premiums for such insurance would be set by the private sector insurance companies. I suspect they would quickly do the numbers and charge premiums based on such things as the owner's training, caliber, discharge rate, kill ratio, and experience in such matters. I suspect also this would do much to cull the emotionally disturbed from toting guns. Insurance companies would not bet on a bad risk profile. And, they would speedily find a way to assess the risk factors involved for insurance applicants. Nevertheless, even the schizophrenic could get insurance from a high risk (and high premium) pool.

• In order to qualify for a CCW permit the permit applicant would have to show proof of insurance coverage for the weapon to which the CCW permit would apply.

• Persons using a weapon for any reason for which there is no proof of insurance would be subject to heavy fines and/or possibly jail time.

• Operation of a weapon for any purpose while under the influence would subject the gun toter to heavy fines and/or jail time.

• Persons involved in an "accidental discharge" resulting in personal or property damage would be subject to a post-event drug/alcohol test.

• Persons holding a CCW or doing an "open carry" would be subject to on-the-spot drug/alcohol at any time there is reasonable suspicion of being under the influence. Failure to pass the test would be subject to heavy fines or jail time. Failure to take the test would be considered a failed test.

Admittedly, this is just an idea. But, it is amazing to me the common sense controls we accept on automobile operation while we simultaneously get flummoxed by the gun/community security conundrum.

"Admittedly, this is just an idea. But, it is amazing to me the common sense controls we accept on automobile operation while we simultaneously get flummoxed by the gun/community security conundrum."

I don't have much of a problem with the laundry list of bullet points you made (and I have incorporated most of them for myself), but none of your suggestions would have stopped or even slowed down the ClackTownCenter or Newtown suicidal killers.

Your common sense controls are as worthless as all the automobile laws, old-age-license exams, and forced-insurance policies that failed to prevent killers who intentionally mow down with their cars numerous people walking down the sidewalk.

At least with the box-cutter-bans on airplanes, they at least tried to prevent a repeat of the 9-11 airplane-as-a-wmd. You don't even try.

Funny comic but a more sinister one could be made about the 1st amendment. The internet and 24 hour propaganda machines were by no means contemplated by the framers.

Also, though assault rifles get a lot of press, it's the pistol that does nearly all of the killing in this country. But pistols are generally used by bad guys to kill other bad guys. Usually minorities. So we don't care as much. Not saying we should care as much, the totally innocent are much easier to sympathize with.

Harry - Your statement, "... none of your suggestions would have stopped or even slowed down the (fill in the blank)..." is correct. But, this approach :

• Does not violate 2A (and suggests no sequestration of weaponry as this is impossible/illegal).
• Could compensate survivors for wrongful death (a bunch of people are now trying to figure out how to pay for a bunch of funerals).
• Could compensate the wounded for injuries and the cost of recovery, including loss of income during recovery.
• Could compensate municipalities for the heavy costs associated with each gun-related SWAT Team call-out.
• Keeps the government out of trying to "control" gun toting.
• Supports a private sector market-based "oversight" into the risks associated with these particular potentially dangerous device(s).
• Would likely deter certain egregiously risky people from continuing to be a risk to the community (For example, my nonagenarian grandfather lost his insurance after a series of collisions. This got him off the streets where he did not belong.)

It's meant as a start - not a panacea. We're not going to get a one-time it's all good now solution. But, as a nation, we have excelled at tackling problems and always working on improvements. To suggest futility is a wimp-out.

Here's what I want answered from those against assault weapons, what makes a gun an assault weapon? I have to ask because our previous assault weapon ban was rather odd on what made an assault weapon and what didn't. Is it:
-Looks?
-Semi auto?
-Collapsible stock?
-Muzzle break?
-Magazine capacity?
-Scope type?
-Rail for quick change of equipment?
-Rate of fire? If so what rate of fire is good and what is bad.
-Pistol grip on a rifle?
-Full auto?
-Caliber?
-External clip vs. internal clip?

Next question is how many features does it take to be considered an assault rifle. 1? 2? 3? 4? More?

But even if we implement all his ideas, I still don't get to his conclusion:
"Would likely deter certain egregiously risky people from continuing to be a risk to the community."

It's good that Gramps finally figured out when to stop driving (my mom did as well, and only after a wreck or two!), but again, we are discussing this topic because of the CTC and CT shootings by suicidal killers. The above will not likely deter them at all.

I was really hoping that the NRA was going come out in support of responsible gun ownership after the Newtown shooting. Instead they proposed some sort of new quazi-governmental, para-military organization composed of gun toting teachers and rent-a-cops.

Both the Mall shooting, and the Newtown shooting, may have been prevented if the gun owners had been responsible and secured their weapons. If the Newtown shooter's mother had owned a gun safe she, and all the other victims, may still be alive today.

Gun ownership may be a right according to the constitution. However, with rights come responsibilities and it's time that we consider expanding the legal responsibilities that go along with gun ownership. Not only will we all be safer from gun violence, your right to bear arms will be safer from reactionary legislation.

- The vast majority of the 100,000,000+ citizen gun owners are already responsible. - The 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms from reactionary legislation
- Maybe there was a law for the guns in Chicago and DC to be locked up in safes those cities wouldn't be the murder capitals of the country...oh wait..

Gun ownership may be a right according to the constitution. However, with rights come responsibilities and it's time that we consider expanding the legal responsibilities that go along with gun ownership. Not only will we all be safer from gun violence, your right to bear arms will be safer from reactionary legislation.

Exactly. If increased safety comes from simply possessing a gun and knowing how to use it, Nancy Lanza should not have been the first victim. Responsibility is a critical element in the solution to this sick problem. Maybe a gun safe is the answer, or maybe it's simply not responsible to have several weapons in a home with a mentally unbalanced young adult?

The only way to prevent another massacre is to ban all firearms outright, and confiscate all guns. An assault weapons ban will make people feel safer, until somebody shots up a school using handguns - as in Dunblane Scotland.

"... It's ... not responsible to have several weapons in a home with a mentally unballanced ... (fill in the blank).

Exactly. Ask the Kinkels about their decision not only to have guns, but to give one to their loving son, Kip.

The problem for the NRA/GOP is that too many Americans are demonstrating in all too many hugh profile ways they are not responsible enough to maintain the NRA/GOP's purist of concept of 2A. Hense, the cartoon startung off this thread. 2A contains a condition. The fundamental right to have arms is only provided so that a "well regulated militia" can be maintained. Moms failing to put their guns in a gun safe, parents giving their challemged teenager a gun and Alex Jones screaming on TV are no where close to being "well regulated." Its time we look at 2A in its totality, including the clearly expressed conditional purpose for having arms. I fully realize this is not what the NRA/GOP wants to hear. But, that is becomming less meaningful every day. The NRA/GOP are so engrossed into listening to their own echo chamber, they haven't figured out the 21st century happened a dozen years ago. The "ammo-cammo" crowd and their aging toadies in the fracturing GOP are about to get run over by an army of angry soccer moms in hybrid minivans.

The way some people track the different kids of guns -- and then act smug toward and offended by those who don't -- reminds me of teenage boys tracking details about rock bands. I don't give a rats a@@ what you call it, I don't think anyone should be able to own a weapon that has the only purpose of mowing down as many people as possible in as short of time as possible.